click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
of pakistan that will bring success to local areas. a country from kabul, it will never happen. we are wasting time and money. the fact we are leaving may assist in the development of stability in local areas. they will never be a centrally governed pakistan, i mean afghanistan. afghanistan is not like iraq. give me one more second and i'll tell you what i think is going to happen in iraq. we'll probably go back to having one bloodthirsty tyrant to rule the country. that's the irony of iraq. >> happy days, wes. >> afghanistan is extraordinarily tribal. it's difficult to have a conversation about afghanistan. one story i loved was one of the things we did in afghanistan when i was working with the civil affairs team, giving out flags to children and local leaders. they would look at the flag and say what is this. you would have to explain, it's your country. there's another thing, i think you brought up a good point, joe. afghanistan is not iraq. you are right. there's a crucial player, though that factors in. that's iran. iran is not only very active and involved, but in addition to that, iran
as well. pat. >> dr. brzezinski, let me talk to you about pakistan. powers flu out, richard nixon tilted, doctor brzezinski was over there looking down the pass. they were a great ally in the cold war. now it looks like we have lost pakistan. have we lost pakistan? if so, why and was it inevitable. >> i think we are losing pakistan. i don't know if we have lost it yet. if we disengage intelligently and engage in the umbrella i have been talking about, her happens we will lose it all together. i think the fault is two way. first of all, we have never been really consistently and comprehensively sensitive to the political interests in having a secure backyard in afghanistan. we just haven't. resently, we played with indi s indians. we give a super nuclear deal to the indians. we did not give it to the pakistanis. there's resentment there. pakistan is coming undone on its own. it's not all our undoing. there's a conflict between the army and society at large. divisions between the army and the military and intelligence. ethnic differences. regional differences in pakistan. plus, this overw
the east to the pakistan border. that's where i spent my time. we're starting to see a lot of the flow from fighters coming from pakistan. >> let me ask you, drawn down 33,000 troops by september of next year, good shape in kandahar and helmand province. how can you maintain momentum and win a war when you're pulling out 1/3 of the best soldiers you've got. >> a couple of things, one, we're having as we had with a bond conference in 2001. what's interesting is as we were talking about troop deployments and actual mission and strategy, we're in the process of escalating the troop numbers. now we're having the reconciliation with the taliban and networks, etc., as we're decelerating. that factors in to the larger conversation. the second thing that's important to remember about the troop assignments is how many will be combat troops or support troops. what are the areas you're going to pen trade in to and hold on to the areas as well. >> "the new york times" reporting this morning that the obama administration officials believe that pakistan's spy agency ordered the killing of a pakistani jou
pakistan, as we said on the show a number of times. how do we deal with pakistan and at the same time, get out of afghanistan except in terms of special forces or drones to represent our interest and chase down terrorists? meanwhile, you have the greatest tender box in the world, to save a nuclear pakistan with more than 100, probably twice as many with nuclear warheads that can fall into the hands of terrorists. >> the bottom line is, how do we deal with it? >> it's always pakistan is a basket case, a nuclear basket case. stay in afghanistan. >> you don't. you don't. >> it's not going to work. that is washington's argument, mike barnicle. pakistan is stabilized. we have to keep having american troops killed in afghanistan. it doesn't add up. invading cambodia is the right move when you are going into vietnam. >> continuing argument and keep making it because less than 1% of american families and american people are serving in the military in afghanistan. >> there you go. >> back to the draft. >> untouched. >> we need a draft. >> we'll come back the dr. aidan quinn. [ male announcer ] memb
they be in yemen, somalia, pakistan or north and central africa. but on this trip in afghanistan panetta is expected to meet with his counterpart, the defense ministry in afghanistan, and he is also expected to have a press conference with the afghan president, hamid karzai. aside from that, the most important part of the visit is talking to the u.s. commanders on the ground here in afghanistan, talking to the u.s. servicemen and women as well who are fighting the fight within the country. right now the strategic time within the war and afghanistan, the president announced the withdrawal plan by the end of this year. 10,000 americans are supposed to leave the country by the end of next year. he's hoping another $23,000 by next year. right now the time for secretary panetta to talk to the commanders here, to the afghan government here, to see how to transition the authority they have in afghanistan back to the afghan people. >> do you think the key to targeting al qaeda is all the information taken from osama bin ladin's compound on may 2nd? >> reporter: well, that's the big question. did
afghanistan, pakistan. you're reading a couple pieces in the "new york times." now it's spreading to all of these different countries and one that really jumped off the page for me, drone attacks in somalia. >> joining us, jeremy scahill, on the cia secret sites in somalia, jeremy, the secret training programs and secret prisons out of somalia is part of your reporting there. how big a threat are these terrorist group there's? >> we should say first of all president obama campaigned on a promise to go up against these bush era policies declaring war on the world, running secret sites, torturing prisoners. deeply involved in an underground dungeon officially run by the somali national security agency, but their salaries are paid by the cia directly. in fact, one somali agent described thousand hairli ed ho and paid by u.s. agents and the u.s. is interrogating prisoners, including those rendered by the kenyan government, snatched off the streets in nairobi based on u.s. intelligence and taken to this secret prison and interrogated. it goes against the president's ordered he signed in janua
of the wars in afghanistan and pakistan. >> still not getting serious. >> i went away from fuzzy. >> is that like jerry at trick math? >> yes. >> are you surprised they don't have a deal today? i actually really -- i mean, i really thought -- >> i would be shocked if they don't have a deal in the next two or three days. again, republican freshmen may have a big ideology difference with barack obama and his world view, and the divide is no greater than ronald reagan's was with tip o'neal in 1983 when they sat down, and they did a kneel. yes, you differ with barack obama and the democrats, but -- >> usually you are good at seeing somebody's angle. like you know what their angle was. what is the angle here? i don't get it. >> these republicans believe this is their only opportunity -- >> are they so stuck to the contract with the tea party they cannot think outside the box for the good of the country? seriously? >> can i finish? you asked a question and i need to finish. they understand one thing. >> what do they understand? >> they are dead right about this. this is their best chan
lethal and could become explosive. >> pakistan. >> it is. harold ford, make no mistake of it. i saw this as a small government conservative. i say this as a free market capitalist. i will tell you a lot of people who voted for pat buchan nab two times for president would agree with me here that if you have hedge fund managers pays significantly less in taxes, our secretaries, our schoolteachers, if you have the largest corporations on the planet paying 0% in u.s. taxes, that is going to cause eventually social unrest. that's not a democratic issue or a republican issue. >> that's a problem. >> global financial institutions including imf made clear -- this challenge, unemployment and the growing disparity are the greatest threats. the question i have for dr. brzenszki, this morning, what advice would you have to achieve the most articulate and succinct frame -- i heard your frame of it, why we find ousts in this mess, the kind of shared sacrifi sacrifice. a week away from it. how do you do it, doctor. >> i think the majority in this country which involves moderate and responsible rep
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8